The 'no deal is better than a bad deal' fallacy

Written by Richard Corbett on 31 March 2017 in Opinion

The UK is heading for disaster if it thinks that no deal is better than a bad deal with the EU, warns Richard Corbett.

Richard Corbett | Photo credit: European Parliament audiovisual

Until recently, the argument that the UK would be able to thrive without any kind of trade deal with the European Union was only promoted by Ukip and the Eurosceptic fringe of the Conservative party. Now, it is apparently shared by UK Prime Minister Theresa May and her foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, repeatedly saying that "no deal is better than a bad deal".

All the available research shows the exact opposite. The National Institute for Economic and Social Research predicts that leaving without a deal, and thus falling under WTO rules and tariffs, would reduce real wages by between 4.6 per cent and seven per cent. 

A leaked Treasury report also warns that leaving the EU with no trade deal is the "alternative to membership with the most negative long-term impact" and would cause a "major economic shock". 


Some studies estimate the increase in UK food prices alone could be as much as eight per cent, in addition to those already created by the devaluation of the pound following the referendum.

Yet the impacts are not just financial or trade-related. A report from the UK House of Commons' cross-party foreign affairs committee highlights the difficulties that UK citizens in other EU countries, and EU citizens in the UK, would face on issues such as residence rights, access to healthcare, employment rights, cross-border civil law disputes and pensions if we exit with no arrangements in place. It would also take our universities out of European research programmes, our police out of cross-border crime-fighting systems and our airlines out of EU skies.

Eurosceptics argue that the UK would be able to compensate for the economic shock of leaving the EU without a deal, by concluding FTAs with other countries. The sequencing makes this a complete fallacy. We may be able to start discussions, but our counterparts will want to know exactly what our future relationship with the EU is going to be before they can negotiate meaningfully. 

In particular, they will want to know whether Britain hopes to retain its membership of any aspect of the single market and what customs arrangements are in place with the EU before they can develop their own position. The nature of our deal with the EU will materially change the calculations for any third country considering signing a bilateral deal with the UK. This is likely to take years.

Even then, we will be negotiating to replace existing deals we had with those countries via the EU. These were negotiated with the full clout of the world's largest market behind us. Many countries will not feel the need to give the same concessions just to Britain as they gave to the EU as a whole.

With article 50 triggered, the clock is ticking: the UK government has less than two years to reach a settlement in what is going to be the 'mother of all divorce cases'. 

With May's government having been, up until now, deliberately vague about what it seeks to achieve during the negotiations, we can only hope that she will not be relying on the 'Fox paradox' - involving sacrificing half our trade for a remote chance to maybe get a better deal with the rest.


About the author

Richard Corbett (S&D, UK) is a member of Parliament's constitutional affairs committee

Interested in this content?

Sign up to our free daily email bulletins.


Share this page



Related Articles

MEP awards 2018: Judging panel announced
8 November 2017

The Parliament Magazine is proud to unveil the judging panel for the 2018 MEP awards.

Issue 465 | 20 November 2017
21 November 2017

Julian King interview, Cybersecurity, Press Freedom, Cohesion Policy,  Wildlife Trafficking, Rare Diseases, Workers' Rights, Open Innovation, Security of Energy supply, 5...

Barnier: Brexit means Brexit - everywhere
21 November 2017

EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has used the bluntest language yet to tell Britain that UK-based banks will lose access to the single market as a legal consequence of Brexit.

Related Partner Content

PM+: TTIP: A foot in the door in Washington?
19 May 2015

TTIP will allow Brussels greater influence in Washington, argues Craig Willy.

EU Labour Mobility Package: An opportunity to drive growth and create jobs
18 November 2015

Better enforcement of existing provisions, access to information and cooperation between member states are key to ensuring the fair mobility of workers, argues Denis Pennel.

Maximising opportunities in a changing world of work
4 October 2016

The employment industry is a labour market enabler at the forefront of the changing world of work, writes Denis Pennel.